Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[ArtK78]

The US constitution was written in 1787. Every European nation was a monarchy. Our forefathers didn't want the government run by any church. 8 of the original 13 states had an official religion. Each was a Christian denomination. There were no Muslim states. It was separation of church and state. Still the US(unofficially) is a Christian nation. The money says "under God". The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States added "under God" in 1954.

 

 

"In God We Trust" became the official motto of the United States in 1956, which prompted its appearance on currency starting in 1957. "In God We Trust" was added to coins during the Civil War, but has at times vanished and reappeared on some coins.

 

 

[Winstonm]

I notice the usual gang of Trump supporters has been notoriously quiet about the Russia investigation and the Comey firing.

[nige1]

I notice the usual gang of Trump supporters has been notoriously quiet about the Russia investigation and the Comey firing.

Not a Trump-supporter but an advocate of world-peace: Improved dialogue with Russia might frustrate the weapons-lobby but seems a tentative first step in the right direction. What else has the "Russian investigation" revealed?

[diana_eva]

Not a Trump-supporter but an advocate of world-peace: Improved dialogue with Russia might frustrate the weapons-lobby but seems a tentative first step in the right direction. What else has the "Russian investigation" revealed?

 

Russia isn't interested in world peace.

[ldrews]

Russia isn't interested in world peace.

 

And you know this how?

 

Apparently the US is not interested in world peace either. Who has the most foreign military installations in the world? Who has the most troops deployed to foreign countries? Who has been engaged in the most wars/police actions during the last 30 years?

[Winstonm]

Latest poll shows Trump has rolled snake eyes on the come out. Not a pretty sight.

[Winstonm]

Not a Trump-supporter but an advocate of world-peace: Improved dialogue with Russia might frustrate the weapons-lobby but seems a tentative first step in the right direction. What else has the "Russian investigation" revealed?

 

By the same reasoning, improved dialogue with Isis would also be the right direction? Russia attacked the U.S. election system, and by the testimony last week in Congress is still attacking the U.S. and other western countries via cyber warfare. You do not go out for a friendly dinner with the enemy while they are dropping bombs on your house.

[ArtK78]

By the same reasoning, improved dialogue with Isis would also be the right direction? Russia attacked the U.S. election system, and by the testimony last week in Congress is still attacking the U.S. and other western countries via cyber warfare. You do not go our for a friendly dinner with the enemy while they are dropping bombs on your house.

But apparently you invite them into your executive office without American press being present.

[Winstonm]

But apparently you invite them into your executive office without American press being present.

 

And with no repercussions from your party's leadership.

[Winstonm]

Not a Trump-supporter but an advocate of world-peace: Improved dialogue with Russia might frustrate the weapons-lobby but seems a tentative first step in the right direction. What else has the "Russian investigation" revealed?

 

You mean other than that the National Security Adviser was susceptible to Russian blackmail, that the President was told this by the Justice Department and acting AG, and that he did nothing to prevent the NSA (Flynn) from sitting in on security briefings for 18 days - until the press leaked the story? (Yates) Or that numerous people within the Trump campaign had contact with Russian intelligence sources during the campaign and met with Russians? (Clapper) Or that a history of taking advantage of too-good-to-be-true deals from the Russians can lead to classic kompromat where the Russians threaten to expose the deals in order to control their target? (Clapper)

 

I guess you're right - nothing there because as yet the photographic evidence of Trump taking kickbacks from Putin is missing. :blink:

[nige1]

You mean other than that the National Security Adviser was susceptible to Russian blackmail, that the President was told this by the Justice Department and acting AG, and that he did nothing to prevent the NSA (Flynn) from sitting in on security briefings for 18 days - until the press leaked the story? (Yates) Or that numerous people within the Trump campaign had contact with Russian intelligence sources during the campaign and met with Russians? (Clapper) Or that a history of taking advantage of too-good-to-be-true deals from the Russians can lead to classic kompromat where the Russians threaten to expose the deals in order to control their target? (Clapper)

I guess you're right - nothing there because as yet the photographic evidence of Trump taking kickbacks from Putin is missing. :blink:

Thank you, WinstonM. Your revelations prompt obvious follow-up questions e.g.

• Was the National Security Advisor blackmailed?
• Is it a crime for Americans to meet with Russians?
• Did Trump negotiate too-good-to-be-true deals with Russians?

 

I don't claim that security departments always lie. I'm sure they tell the truth when it suits their purposes.

 

Nations spy on each other. The US destabilises elected foreign governments.

 

The Russians are alleged to have hacked emails showing that the Democratic party deliberately undermined the prospects of one of its own candidates. If this revelation were true, it would be a service to US democracy. But so far, the Russians have been given scant credit.

[awm]

Thank you, WinstonM. Your revelations prompt obvious follow-up questions e.g.

• Was the National Security Advisor blackmailed?
• Is it a crime for Americans to meet with Russians?
• Did Trump negotiate too-good-to-be-true deals with Russians?

 

We don't know whether the national security advisor was blackmailed. This is part of what the FBI and various congressional committees are supposed to be investigating. They may not have needed blackmail, since he seems to have been on Turkey's payroll the whole time (and Turkey's current government is close with Russia). The fact that Republicans in congress (and Trump himself) seem to be trying to slow and/or derail these investigations certainly seems suspicious.

 

It is not a crime for Americans to meet with Russians. It is a crime to lie about such meetings to Congress (as Jeff Sessions did). It's also a crime to offer quid pro quo to Russian hackers in exchange for illegally obtaining and releasing data which could help swing an election. And it's a crime to reveal classified information to Russians. Did these things happen? The lying and concealing seems clearcut; the other things are, again, the reason we have all these investigations going on. The fact that they are being stalled against seems suspicious.

 

As for "too-good-to-be-true" deals, some of this is probably derailed by the current level of public scrutiny. It certainly seems that the Trump administration intends to lift sanctions on Russia which were enacted in response to the invasion of Ukraine (and further increased in response to the election interference). The appointment of Secretary of State Tillerson (who negotiated a huge oil deal between Exxon and Russia which was blocked by the sanctions) seems to imply this, and National Security Advisor Flynn apparently also promised to lift the sanctions in the December discussion with the Russians that he lied about (likely, but not definitely, with authorization from the president). Of course, lifting the sanctions now while the administration is under investigation for collaboration with Russia would have very bad optics (even Republicans in congress might not be able to ignore it).

[nige1]

We don't know whether the national security advisor was blackmailed. This is part of what the FBI and various congressional committees are supposed to be investigating. They may not have needed blackmail, since he seems to have been on Turkey's payroll the whole time (and Turkey's current government is close with Russia). The fact that Republicans in congress (and Trump himself) seem to be trying to slow and/or derail these investigations certainly seems suspicious.

 

It is not a crime for Americans to meet with Russians. It is a crime to lie about such meetings to Congress (as Jeff Sessions did). It's also a crime to offer quid pro quo to Russian hackers in exchange for illegally obtaining and releasing data which could help swing an election. And it's a crime to reveal classified information to Russians. Did these things happen? The lying and concealing seems clearcut; the other things are, again, the reason we have all these investigations going on. The fact that they are being stalled against seems suspicious.

 

As for "too-good-to-be-true" deals, some of this is probably derailed by the current level of public scrutiny. It certainly seems that the Trump administration intends to lift sanctions on Russia which were enacted in response to the invasion of Ukraine (and further increased in response to the election interference). The appointment of Secretary of State Tillerson (who negotiated a huge oil deal between Exxon and Russia which was blocked by the sanctions) seems to imply this, and National Security Advisor Flynn apparently also promised to lift the sanctions in the December discussion with the Russians that he lied about (likely, but not definitely, with authorization from the president). Of course, lifting the sanctions now while the administration is under investigation for collaboration with Russia would have very bad optics (even Republicans in congress might not be able to ignore it).

Thank you AWM, I hope more of the truth surfaces soon.

 

And even if the sanctions on Russia are justified, I hope that Trump can negotiate lifting them, because they hurt us in Europe as well as the Russians.

[cherdano]

Man, Rik, I am disappointed. I don't even know where to start.

Since the State of Northrhine-Westphalia has declared days such as the the last day before fasting (6 weeks before Easter) a mandatory religious holiday, I am sitting home alone, and when I want to have a holiday (since my family has holiday) I have to work because I have already had my share of holidays.

The state of Northrhine-Westphalia has made no statement declaring Rosenmontag a public holiday. (Given that most locals are completely drunk on Rosenmontag - unless they are too hung-over from the day before, maybe nobody in state government ever deemed such a declaration necessary.)

 

And all that because some people believe, without a shred of evidence, that there once was a guy who was conceived with the involvement of a man, died for the sins of mankind and stood up to live again before he took of to a place called "Heaven". So we need to have days off on the day that

Christians remember that he was born (Christmas)

Christians remember that he was crucified (Good Friday)

Christians remember that he resurrected from death (Easter Monday)

Christians remember that he went to "heaven" (Ascuncion)

Christians remember that his mother went to heaven (Assumption of Mary)

Christians remember that his followers got inspired to tell the rest of the world this nonsense (Pentecostal Monday)

Christians remember that this guy was conceived (Immaculate conception)

Christians start the fasting period (Two days before Ash Wednesday)

Christians celebrate the "Greatest Christiansd in history" (All Saints-day)

 

And I probably forgot a couple.

How could you forget "Christians celebrate Christian church splitting up into two churches (Reformation day)"?? I do worry for your godless soul. And I am heart-broken that you have to work in a state that doesn't observe "Christian remember a made-up story about three wise men visiting him day (epiphany)". But I can also see that commuting from NL to Baden-Wuerttemberg would be a bit far.

[cherdano]

(even Republicans in congress might not be able to ignore it).

You really think Paul Ryan would let that get in the way of his dreams from keg-drinking of limiting health insurance for poor Americans?

[Winstonm]

Thank you, WinstonM. Your revelations prompt obvious follow-up questions e.g.

• Was the National Security Advisor blackmailed?
• Is it a crime for Americans to meet with Russians?
• Did Trump negotiate too-good-to-be-true deals with Russians?

 

I don't claim that security departments always lie. I'm sure they tell the truth when it suits their purposes.

 

Nations spy on each other. The US destabilises elected foreign governments.

 

The Russians are alleged to have hacked emails showing that the Democratic party deliberately undermined the prospects of one of their own candidates. If this revelation were true, it would be a service to US democracy. But so far, the Russians have been given scant credit.

 

Here are the answers:

1) It is unknown publicly at this time if Flynn was blackmailed - but we know he could have been compromised by the Russians.

2) Meeting with a Russian is not a crime to my knowledge - unless there is collusion to commit a crime, and Trump's associates met and talked to Russians during the campaign.

3) It is unknown whether or not Trump was ensnared by Russia kompromat - but we know his son has claimed their resources for loans for golf courses during a time when American banks would not lend on golf course development came from Russians.

 

As you can see, there are no clear answers at this point - hence, the investigation.

[PassedOut]

Thank you. Was totally wondering why people are involved in an interminable discussion about Sharia law when this sh1t is going on.

Should be obvious to everyone that Trump fired Comey because he fears what the FBI investigation will find. I don't think Trump will be able to suppress it over the long haul.

[nige1]

By the same reasoning, improved dialogue with Isis would also be the right direction?

Why not? ISIS seems intransigent, so meaningful dialogue might be hard. Even if the attempt were futile, however, our willingness to try would demonstrate that we are reasonable.

[Winstonm]

Why not? ISIS seems intransigent, so meaningful dialogue might be hard. Even if the attempt were futile, however, our willingness to try would demonstrate that we are reasonable.

 

Dialogue is O.K. as long as you understand with whom you are dealing - not friends or allies but sworn enemies, at war with you.

[nige1]

Dialogue is O.K. as long as you understand with whom you are dealing - not friends or allies but sworn enemies, at war with you.

That prejudice is likely to render dialogue futile.

[diana_eva]

That prejudice is likely to render dialogue futile.

 

I seriously wonder whether you are trolling at times. Prejudice, really?

[Winstonm]

That prejudice is likely to render dialogue futile.

 

Prejudice? This prejudice?

 

prejudice

1. Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

 

I'm pretty certain both Isis and Russia have given us reason and actual experience to believe them to be enemies who wish us harm. Do you have proof otherwise?

[nige1]

Dialogue is O.K. as long as you understand with whom you are dealing - not friends or allies but sworn enemies, at war with you.

I seriously wonder whether you are trolling at times. Prejudice, really?

Prejudice? This prejudice?

I'm pretty certain both Isis and Russia have given us reason and actual experience to believe them to be enemies who wish us harm. Do you have proof otherwise?

prejudice

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

If you consider "prejudice" to be a inappropriate, I apologise. Please substitute "preconception".

 

So far in this thread, lots of allegations have lacked proof.

 

Many of my statements are almost tautologies, for which proof isn't really needed. For example: It's hard to achieve a peaceful outcome in negotiation with Russians, if you're convinced that you're "sworn enemies".

 

But, IMO, you should still try: the 1984 scenario, fostered by the weapons-lobby, risks "Armageddon". In such circumstances, it's foolhardy to rule out a peaceful solution.

[rmnka447]

Here are the answers:

1) It is unknown publicly at this time if Flynn was blackmailed - but we know he could have been compromised by the Russians.

2) Meeting with a Russian is not a crime to my knowledge - unless there is collusion to commit a crime, and Trump's associates met and talked to Russians during the campaign.

3) It is unknown whether or not Trump was ensnared by Russia kompromat - but we know his son has claimed their resources for loans for golf courses during a time when American banks would not lend on golf course development came from Russians.

 

As you can see, there are no clear answers at this point - hence, the investigation.

Just some food for thought -- The Russians aren't fools. With Hillary Clinton heavily favored to win the election by most analyst and polls, wouldn't it be very likely that Russia would also try to put in place some "friends" to influence Hillary as well? So, after the current investigation is completed (whatever the outcome), it would probably be worthwhile to look for possible infiltration by the Russians among the Democrats.

[Trinidad]

Just some food for thought -- The Russians aren't fools. With Hillary Clinton heavily favored to win the election by most analyst and polls, wouldn't it be very likely that Russia would also try to put in place some "friends" to influence Hillary as well?

Yes, it would be a near certainty that the Russians tried that. However, the difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump lies in the likelihood that the Russians would succeed. For Clinton: close to 0, for Trump: close to 1.

 

There is zero evidence for inappropriate contacts between the Clinton team and the Russians, most likely because Clinton knows that inappropriate contacts with Russians are ... inappropriate. There have been plenty of inappropriate contacts between the Trump team and the Russians, most likely because the word inappropriate doesn't exist in Trump's vocabulary.

 

And just to make this clear. The fact that the likelihood that the Russians wouldn't succeed with Clinton isn't anything special. Anybody who would take a governing job serious would make sure that enemies don't influence their policies. So, regardless of who would have been president: Hillary, Bernie, Ted or Big Bird, they would have had the integrity and brains to prevent getting compromised by the enemy. It is pretty unique that someone who seems to lack either one or both makes it to the White House.

 

Rik